Latest Updates Paul Wellstone Past Updates Message Board Archive


Hey Folks. Read this book review of The Great Unraveling in The American Prospect, which is in the Others on Krugman Section



We've got Paul Krugman's new article in 1.5.04 issue of The Nation, which is in the American Economy Section



Hey Folks! Look at this photo from a Sat. Times piece about Joe Trippi, who is Howard Dean's campaign manager. Now look right next to his head on your right.

I also forgot to tell you that I posted Paul's second Brian Williams interview from 11.26.03, which is in the American Economy Section

Aside from that and the NYT columns, I haven't seen much new Krugman material lately that's not already here. Tell me on the message board if you see anything

Finally, I have been moonlighting as a blogger on the unofficial Wesley Clark Weblog (in case anyone is wondering Dean is my second choice, and I am not too fond of any of the others). In this capacity, I recently made graphs and spreadsheets of a bunch of polling data for the 2004 presidential primary and general election. If anyone has any suggestions please tell me



Hey Folks! Atrios has posted, saying that it's obviously not a Hitler mustache on Cheney. Yes, Atrios was indeed being sarcastic and not "commenting critically" on the U.K. cover, contrary to what tendentious Luskin and Kaus have claimed. Also check out Atrios' comments section, which is wonderful as always, both on this topic as well as giving Luskin and Kaus their just deserts

Also I've archived a link to that New Yorker article on how Luskin made a fool of himself by threatening to sue Atrios in the Others on Krugman Section

I've also revamped the Books Section for every one of Krugman's non-technical books. Now, for each book, you can look at the page for all of its editions that have come out: first edition, sixth edition, audiobook, ebook, etc. I will do the same thing for Krugman's technical books soon.

I supposed you've noticed I've changed to white the background color on the Updates and all other previously blue pages. I did this so they would be more readable, and I think it's an improvement. The outside blue frames and everything else will remain the same



We've linked to the 11.18.03 interview on World Talk Radio CEO & Business Author Interviews, hosted by Francis Gaskins, which is archived in the Videos Section

Contrary to what David Kirkpatrick (whose 11.23.03 New York Times story looks like a cut-and-paste job from an RNC press release) and Gollum Luskin say (I'm going to ween myself off of linking to his vile site), that picture of Cheney on the U.K. cover (below) is *NOT* comparing Cheney to Hitler. First, let's state the obvious. We've seen Luskin do this before: This is the usual tendentious over-interpretation and phony outrage that Luskin employs whenever he analyzes anything related to Krugman. The RNC is prone to the exact same thing with Democrats in general: The RNC, including chair Ed Gillespie, has also stooped to calling the Democratic presidential candidates' criticisms of Bush "political hate speech." And what term did RNC spokeswoman Christine Iverson, in Kirkpatrick's article, use to describe Krugman's attacks on Bush? You guess it: "hate speech" (I guess she forgot the throw-away qualifier "political"). Ed Gillespie and the others at the RNC must apologize for exploiting the term "hate speech," not to Democrats but to those who are victims of *actual* hate speech. It's especially disgusting that the RNC would abuse this term for the purpose of smearing and shouting down political dissent against Bush.

Second: This is a picture of Cheney with an oil mustache, like in the "Got Milk" commercials (it says, "Got Oil?" on his forehead and the oil is dribbling out of his mouth) -- so the Cheney picture is political satire regarding Cheney's very very close ties to Halliburton and big oil. This is obviously what the book designers intended, and this Hitler-mustache accusation is a tendentious and willful misinterpretation of the picture. Let's remember that this "U.K. cover" story was first reported in an 11.18.03 post on a blog by one Stephen Kirchner. It was followed by an 11.18.03 post on Luskin's own blog, which cited Kirchner and expressed outrage over the U.K. cover being "grotesque and distasteful." These were finally followed by an 11.20.03 New York Sun article. However, in these posts and Sun article, there was *ZERO* mention of Cheney's oil mustache being a Hitler mustache. These are just three examples: I'm sure that we can find many other writings on the internet and print where the U.K. cover is criticized but the idea never came to the author's mind that it compares Cheney to Hitler (the Unofficial Krugman Archive message board is another example of this). The reason why the idea doesn't come to mind is obviously that it does not look like a Hitler mustache.

So why all this faux outrage against Krugman? At some point, somebody either by design or due to his own far-fetched but genuine opinion, started a meme that the U.K. cover was comparing Cheney to Hitler (maybe this person started the meme on some blog or message board somewhere, etc). As we know, memes survive not by their truthfulness but by their ability to propagate themselves. This meme is obviously very useful to Luskin, the RNC, and all tendentious Krugman critics. So, upon hearing it, they seized on it to propagate it more and smear Krugman, until it ended up in the article of a gullible reporter at The New York Times.

It's fairly obvious that Luskin doesn't really believe that the U.K. cover has anything to do with Hitler, or else he would have said so at the begining in his 11.18.03 blog posting, rather than sitting on it for five days until 11.23.03. In the 11.20.03 Sun article, Luskin, who is interviewed, again says nothing whatsoever about Hitler when criticizing the U.K. cover, but he does find time to make this complaint about it: "'What is disturbing about it, is the imagery is violent,' said Donald Luskin, the most prominent cyber-critic of Mr. Krugman. Mr. Luskin said he was most troubled by the picture of the president. 'It looks like physical violence was done to him,' said Mr. Luskin," (give me a break!). In short, Luskin and his cohort are faking it when they say they think the U.K. cover depicts a Hitler mustache.

Third: The oil mustache is far too wide and covers far too much of Cheney's upper lip to be a Hitler mustache, which would cover only the middle of the upper lip. Luskin, and apparently the RNC also whine that the cover portrays Bush as Frankenstein's monster, which, if true, wouldn't be offensive (it's just strange that anyone would be outraged by Frankenstein -- when did conservatives become such wimps?). For what it's worth, I think the stitches in Bush's forehead, instead, are there to reflect Bush's lack of a brain. But I'm sure that Luskin and the RNC would whine about how offensive that is too.

Finally: The public's outrage against Hitler and grief for victims of the Holocaust, World War II, and other crimes against humanity is our greatest weapon against it happening again. The same goes for our outrage against *actual* anti-Semitism and *actual* hate speech. We should therefore hold that outrage and grief sacred, which includes not allowing them to be exploited by charlatans. Luskin is one of those charlatans, and so are Ed Gillespie and the people at the RNC. They are exploiting our grief and outrage to score a cheap and tendentious political point against Krugman. They should be ashamed of themselves. I'm sure that everyone else is ashamed of them.

If you like, you can reach RNC spokeswoman Christine Iverson at 202-863-8614. Or email the Times what you think of David Kirkpatrick's story at You can also tell National Review Online you think of Gollum Luskin at

Click here for a permanent link to this statement



Everyone seems shocked over the cover of the U.K. version of The Great Unraveling. I've actually known about it since May, 2003. This is because, even back in May, there was a picture of the U.K. cover on (it was removed for a second there and now is back). However, I didn't say anything about the U.K. cover since I figured Luskin et al. would figure it out and smear Krugman with it soon enough. (By the way, I think that their failure to notice it sooner says a lot about their incompetence).

Maybe it's my ever-growing outrage against the Bush administration or maybe time just increases the influence of one's own sense of humor, but *I've actually grown to like the U.K. cover a lot* -- I think it's funny and gives Bush and Cheney what they deserve. I also doubt that Paul Krugman had anything to do with the decision over the cover, so spare him the hate mail. Also, several people have told me that its style is very fitting to current British/European tastes, and wouldn't offend most people there (obviously the previous sort of statement is always debatable, and I can only go on other people's impressions, since I'm not British, and I've never even been to a foreign country besides Canada).

I will have a link for you to buy the U.K. version when I figure it out. Who knows? Maybe the U.K. version will become a collector's item. For now, enjoy:



Hey Folks! We've have three new items: first Paul Krugman's 11.7.03 appearance opposite supply-side crank Stephen Moore on Chris Matthews' Hardball, Paul's 11.7.03 appearance on The News with Brian Williams, and, finally, Paul's 11.14.03 appearance in a roundtable discussion on CNBC's Capitol Report, all archived in the American Economy Section

It appears that Luskin has now changed that strange picture of Kevin Smith to something else that again doesn't look like Paul Krugman. Ironically, it looks a little like George W. Bush (Curious George?) with a beard, though I'm not sure. Please feel free to comment on the message board.



We've got four new items in the Videos Section today.

First there's Paul Krugman's 10.1.03 interview on Chicago Public Radio's Worldview and The Great Unraveling

Then we have the the audio of Paul's 9.19.03 interview with Christopher Lydon at the Harvard Bookstore about The Great Unraveling

Then there's the audio of Paul's interview on Pacifica's Peacewatch on the Iraq war, the federal budget, and The Great Unraveling

Finally, we have the audio of Paul's 10.27.02 interview on To the Best of Our Knowledge about his 10.20.02 NYT Magazine piece on income inequality, For Richer



Hey Folks! We've got the audio of Paul Krugman's 10.30.03 appearance on KCRW's To the Point, and it is archived in the Videos Section. Thanks to reader EZ for pointing it out

It appears that Luskin has changed that strange graphic of Anthony Michael Hall, which I was asking about last time, to a picture of Kevin Smith



Hey Folks! We've got the audio of Paul Krugman's 10.11.03 speech in at the First Unitarian Church in Portland Oregon about The Great Unraveling, and it is archived in the Videos Section. Our reader, Trillian, who wanted to attend his lecture but wasn't able asked us a few weeks ago about getting the audio for this speech. Well, here you go. Enjoy!

Also, Paul appeared on on 10.31.03 CNN's Paula Zahn Now right after supply-side crank Steven Moore, and we put it in American Economy Section



Hey Folks! Paul Krugman has written a book review of Joe Conason's Big Lies and Molly Ivins' Bushwhacked in The New York Review of Books, and it is archived in the American Economy Section

By the way, anyone notice craven hypocrite Luskin's silence on this entire thing about threatening to sue Atrios -- he hasn't even said anything yet about his lawyers advising him not to discuss it? Even the folks at NRO's The Corner are embarrassed by Luskin, who can dish it out but can't take it, and then goes running to his lawyers (the NRO links are here and here, and here's one where Lucianne, Jr. is clearly embarrassed by Luskin but makes the bizarre excuse that Luskin's litigiousness is somehow to due to Luskin being a web newbie, and even that later turns out not to be true).

Maybe now that NRO has begun to distance itself from Luskin, this is a portent that they will finally drop his off-the-deep-end column.

By the way, does anyone know why Luskin has this picture on his website? I'm not sure what it's supposed to be (it doesn't look like Paul Krugman). It looks like Anthony Michael Hall with smallpox




Luskin's lawyers have sent a letter to the Unofficial Site's friend and ally, Atrios threatening to sue him for calling Luskin a "stalker." Atrios has posted the text of the threatening letter from Luskin's lawyers here

Also, as Atrios points out, Luskin is a complete hypocrite. First, if I, Bobby Pelgrift, held Luskin to the same standard that he is holding over Atrios, I would be suing Luskin who, on May 20, 2003, falsely accused me of a "mini denial-of-service attack against NRO's mail server". Second, as Atrios also points out, one of Luskin's own NRO attack jobs against Krugman had the title "We Stalked. They Balked". Third, Luskin's own ally Instapundit once wrote "Donald Luskin is stalking Paul Krugman." Atrios has more here

FYI, among my numerous emails from Vicodin and Viagra peddlers (I don't want them, so please don't send them!), I have not yet found any letters from Luskin's lawyers or anyone else. Of course I will tell you, our readers, if I get one.

Finally, my personal opinion on this is that Luskin is doing this for two purposes: 1. To get publicity and prop up his own pathetic career as an economics/political pundit (notice that he's already gotten an appearance on Hannity & Colmes by bitching about how victimized he's been for being called a "stalker"). 2. To stifle and chill the free speech of his political opponents, who, like anyone, fear lawsuits. 3. Luskin's lawyer, in the letter, threatens to expose Atrios' secret identity, which would of course harm Atrios personally and send a message that chills the free speech of other anonymous bloggers, who fear being similarly outed

As I've said before, Paul Krugman is by far the Bush administration's most important and most effective critic. Atrios is one of, if not the most, important presences on the internet, opposing conservatives and George W. Bush. By harassing them, Luskin is hoping that some of what they have will rub off on his own largely irrelevant career.

Update: Atrios has posted a nice roundup of comments on this lawsuit question. My award for best post definitely goes out to Digby. As I continuing on my reading, I'll give a second, third and fourth one out to Billmon, Demosthenes, and The Poor Man (LOL).

Continuing on my reading, even Instapundit calls Luskin's latest action "embarrassing." Also, Arthur Silber at Light of Reason says that Luskin "disgraces [Ayn] Rand's name, and her intellectual legacy," and also says, "I had had him in my blogroll. He is not there any longer. And I hope he hears of this post, and removes me from his links promptly. I have no wish to be associated with him in any way whatsoever. Intellectual thugs, whose weapon of choice is the lawsuit, are not people I wish to know, even via the internet."



Hey Folks! We've got the audio of Paul's 10.24.03 interview on The Brian Lehrer Show, where he discusses the economy, awful budget outlook, Mahathir's anti-Semitic remarks, and The Great Unraveling, and it is archived in the Videos Section



Hey folks, here's a temporary link to Paul Krugman's interview on BBC's World Business Review last night. Unfortunately, the audio at this particular link will be soon replaced with a newer edition of this show, where Krugman is not there, within a few days. If anyone is able, could you please help me find a permanent link to this interview? Thank you.

Also, be sure to catch Paul on TV on C-SPAN 2 on Sunday, 10.26.03, at 9:30 PM, where they will repeat Paul's speech in Shorewood, Wisconsin on The Great Unraveling. Of course, as we announced yesterday, this exact same video can be watched online by clicking on the link at the top of our Videos Section. But TV appearances are of course always a big deal, so you can see Paul on the magic of the small screen (though I guess it's bigger than a computer screen) by watching C-SPAN 2 tomorrow Sunday, 10.26.03 at 9:30 PM.

Finally, our C-SPAN letter-writing campaign was mentioned on Eschaton!!! Thanks again for writing in to C-SPAN. By the way, does anyone know why Atrios often calls Krugman "The Krenis?" And Bill Clinton the "Clenis"? Etc.?



Today is the first anniversary of the deaths of late Senator Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, and their daughter Marcia. Please keep them in your thoughts throughout the day, and please, if you are able, try to do something in their memory




The C-SPAN Online coordinator, at, has just written saying, they have posted on their Book TV Site the video we requested. So now, finally, we have linked to the 56K video of Krugman's speech on The Great Unraveling in Shorewood, Wisconsin, and it's archived in the Videos Section

Below is the letter from C-SPAN to me and all those who wrote in, which I just received:

Subject: Paul Krugman video


The Paul Krugman video segment from his speech on "The Great Unraveling" is now available on You can find it in the This Weekend box for October 25-27. The segment is also being re-aired on C-SPAN2 this Sunday at 9:30PM ET. Thank you for your interest in Book TV.

This is a great small victory for getting the truth out there and for fighting the pro-Bush bias in the media. Thank you to all who wrote in to C-SPAN and helped make it happen.

Also, thanks to C-SPAN, and the guy whose email is, for coming to their senses. They should be forewarned of course that we Krugman fans will be vigilant to make sure that C-SPAN doesn't remove the video prematurely or anything, in case they relapse into their fear of "partisanship."



Paul has posted on the Official Site a response to Luskin's faux outrage regarding the Tuesday NYT article, which is in the Personal Section. This is truly nauseating that Luskin would exploit the plight and oppression of the Jewish people in order to try to score cheap political points against Krugman

My mother and her entire family are Jewish (which actually makes me Jewish by the Orthodox definition, although I'm not a religious person and I don't practice), both of her parents came to the U.S. from Austria to flee the Nazis, and much of their family who did not leave were killed in the Holocaust, including my mother's father's parents.



C-SPAN ONLINE CENSORS PAUL KRUGMAN -- C-SPAN Online Coordinator writes: "After being told I would be allowed to post Paul Krugman's speech online, and then passing the news onto you, it came down that we needed to hold off on such an action in order to maintain the balance of partisan voices featured on"

I just got a very disturbing email from, which says that, after promising in a mass email yesterday to put the video of Paul's speech in Shorewood, Wisconsin on their site, they will now break this promise. What's their reason? They will not post it "in order to maintain the balance of partisan voices featured on" This sounds an awful lot to me like C-Span Online is censoring Krugman for his (very moderate) political views, and it is outrageous. If you have anything to say to them about this, you can email them at:

Just to make it clear: Please remember that they promised on 10/22 to put a video of Krugman's speech in their online archive. First, they put up a temporary 300K video on their C-Span Broadband site, which is there only for a week, so people with broadband connections could watch until C-SPAN was able to encode and post the smaller, more permanent version of the video on either the regular C-Span or Book TV site. It is on this smaller, longer-lasting version of the video (which, compared to the temporary 300K version, is easier for people with slow internet connections to watch and which will be online much longer than a week) that they broke their promise for censorship reasons on 10/23.

For reference, here are the two letters in their entirety, the first being the mass email yesterday making the promise to post the video, and the second one breaking that promise for censorship reasons:

1st Letter from C-Span Online, which promises to put the video on -- 10/22/03

Subject: Paul Krugman Online


Paul Krugman's talk on his book, "The Great Unraveling" was not originally earmarked for online archiving. However, due to heavy interest in having the program put up, C-SPAN will do so. This will probably not happen until Thurs., Oct. 23 however. We need to get a copy of the tape and encode it in real time. If you would like to view the clip now and have a broadband internet connection, you can go to the c-span broadband site at and click on the BookTV feature. The clip will only exist on the broadband site for the next week. Thank you for your interest and viewership.

C-SPAN Online Coordinator

2nd Letter from C-Span Online, which says they will not post the Krugman video "in order to maintain the balance of partisan voices featured on" -- 10/23/03

Subject: apologies


After being told I would be allowed to post Paul Krugman's speech online, and then passing the news onto you, it came down that we needed to hold off on such an action in order to maintain the balance of partisan voices featured on Please be reminded that you can watch the Krugman clip with a broadband connection for the next week on Also, you can procure a vhs copy for yourself by calling c-span's video archives at 1 877 662 7726. Lastly, if c-span plans to run the segment again on an upcoming book tv weekend, I will make sure to alert you all. Thanks again for your interest and viewership.

C-SPAN Online Coordinator

Again, if you want to opine to C-Span Online on this issue, their email is:



Hey Folks! Please read Russell Baker's wonderful review of The Great Unraveling, which we've linked to. This and two other book reviews are archived at the top of the Others on Krugman Section

Also, it seems like our letter writing campaign to C-Span worked! As of now we have linked to a 300K version of Krugman's speech on C-Span 2 at the Harry W. Schwartz Bookshops in Shorewood, Wisconsin, which is archived in the Videos Section. C-Span has written saying that they'll have a smaller, say 56K, version within a few days, and of course we'll have it when it arrives.



Paul is on C-Span 2 on right now from 6:30 PM until 8:00 PM! Here's the link to watch C-Span 2 live online. Unfortunately, after 8PM, the speech will be gone from the web unless C-Span puts it in their online video archives. So, if you have time, please request that C-Span put this Krugman speech in their online video archives, by emailing them at -- Please just tell them that: The C-Span website should put in their online video archive the speech about The Great Unraveling, by Paul Krugman, at the Harry W. Schwartz Bookshops in Shorewood, Wisconsin, which was aired on Sunday, October 19 at 12:30 am and at 6:30 pm

Hey Folks! We've got the transcripts of Paul's 10.17.03 interview on Hannity and Colmes and his 10.11.03 interview on CNN In The Money, which are both in the American Economy Section



Hey Folks! We've got the audio of Paul's 10.11.03 interview on NPR's Weekend Edition about The Great Unraveling, and it is archived at the beginning of the Videos Section



Hey Folks! We've linked to an excellent 9.30.03 interview on the New Economy, broadband internet, cellphone access, the effects of new technology on developing countries, and The Great Unraveling, which is archived in the Videos Section



I just wanted to say that I have been incredibly impressed by General Wesley Clark, who is running for president, especially in two town-hall style meetings that I've seen on C-SPAN. I'm linking to the videos of the first one in New Hampshire (click here) and the second one in Iowa (click here). I'm sure that I am well to the right of him on some economic issues, such as free trade (which I favor almost unconditionally) and putting international labor and environmental standards into trade agreements (which I usually oppose). But whatever my differences with Clark on policy, they don't even come close to my objection to the Bush administration's war in Iraq, which was not an imminent threat, Bush's agenda of grossly regressive tax cuts at any cost, and Bush's ignoring of the War on Terrorism. I'm posting this because I found General Clark to be by far more substantive that the other Democratic candidates who already have detailed plans out there. He was very inspiring to me and uncommonly genuine.



Hey Folks! Atrios brings to us the newest from Donald "Hinckley" Luskin, who is now actually physically stalking Krugman. Also, be sure to check out Atrios' comments section on this one.



Hey Folks! Here's the transcript of Paul's interview with Lou Dobbs last night, which is in the American Economy Section. By the way, why is it now Lou Dobbs Tonight? What happened to Moneyline?



Ey Folks! We've got the video of Paul Krugman's Canadian interview on CBC Radio aboot the tax cutting revolution in the U.S., which is archived in the Videos Section, eh?



We've got the video of Paul Krugman's 9.26.03 speech at Berkeley's forum entitled Paul Krugman: The War in Iraq and the American Economy, which is archived in the Videos Section

This week Paul is #3 on The New York Times bestseller list!!!!!!!!!!! (also notice that Ann Coulter's and Laura Ingraham's books are the only two among the top 15 with the bulk order sign next to them).



Hey folks! We've linked to the audio of Paul Krugman's 9.25.03 interview on KQED's Forum: with Michael Kasny, which is archived in the Videos Section



We've also linked to the audio of Paul's 9.19.03 interview on NPR's The Connection and his 9.15.03 interview on NPR's Here & Now. They are both archived in the Videos Section



Hey folks! We have the transcript of Paul's 9.22.03 interview on Buchanan and Press, which is in the American Economy Section

We've also linked to the audio of Paul's interviews: the 9.17.03 one and the 9.17.03 one, which are both archived in the Videos Section



Hey folks! We have the transcript of Paul's 9.17.03 interview on CNN Street Sweep. We also have the transcripts of two Krugman interviews on Marketplace: the first on 9.17.03 and the second on 9.18.03. They are all in the American Economy Section

We've also linked to a new Guardian article about Krugman, which is archived in the Others on Krugman Section



Wonderful News! The Great Unraveling has reached #4 on The New York Times best seller list! You can see the bestseller list on this new post from the Official Site, which is in the Personal Section



We've linked to the audio of Paul Krugman's 9.15.03 interview on The Charlie Rose Show. Also we have the audio of Krugman's 9.16.03 interview on the Leonard Lopate Show. They are both archived at the beginning of the Videos Section

Hey folks. We've linked to this WNYC's web-copy of the preface of The Great Unraveling, which is archived in the American Economy Section



Hey folks we've linked to this excellent Krugman interview with Kevin Drum of CalPundit, which is archived in the American Economy Section

Also, I've found out that Paul will appear on Buchanan & Press this Thursday, September 18, 2003 on MSNBC at 6PM ET



Hey Folks! Check out this sleek new ad for the Great Unraveling that I found



We've got the transcript of Paul Krugman's 9.10.03 CNN interview on Paul Zahn Now, which is in the American Economy Section

Also stay tuned this week, when Paul will be on Special Report with Maria Bartiromo on CNBC this Monday, September 15, between 9PM and 10PM ET.

This week, Paul will also appear on Buchanan & Press on MSNBC at 6PM ET though I'm not sure which day yet. Paul will also be on Charlie Rose some time this week, I think, but again I'm not sure which day yet.



Hey folks! We have a big Krugman piece about tax cuts for New York Times Magazine, which is in the American Economy Section



Hey Folks! We have the audio from today's Fresh Air Interview with Paul, which is at the beginning of the Videos Section

We have also linked to the new Bushflash interview of Krugman about The Great Unraveling, which is archived in the American Economy Section



Hey Folks! We've got the transcript of the Krugman interview by Tim Russert about The Great Unraveling, which I've put in the American Economy Section

Also, we have also linked to the audio of a 6.28.03 Krugman interview on Been There/Done That, and the link is archived in the Videos Section

Also be sure to catch Krugman on NPR's Fresh Air, which I think airs today, though it might already have been on yesterday. We will link to the audio as soon as we've found it

Finally, I finally made Eschaton, where I assisted Atrios with this story about Fred Barnes, and Atrios was kind enough to link to me



We've linked to a new Krugman interview by about The Great Unraveling, which I've put in the American Economy Section

Also be sure to catch Krugman on Tim Russert, which is on CNBC Sunday night (tonight), 7PM



Hey Folks! New post from the Official Site about Krugman's Book Tour (beginning next week) for The Great Unraveling, which I've put in the Personal Section



We've got a new post from the Official Site about California taxes, including and their distribution among different income groups, which I've put in American Economy Section



Luskin misses the point

Anyway, let's recap what's happened so far:

Luskin has been complaining about the following passage from Krugman's 8.1.03 article

You often hear claims that excessive spending is responsible for California's budget woes. True, budgets grew rapidly after the mid-1990's. But California began the 1990's by slashing outlays in response to a fiscal crisis, and most of the subsequent growth was simply a return to pre-crisis levels. As analysts at the nonpartisan California Budget Project point out, real state spending per capita was only 10 percent higher in 2002-03 than it was in 1989-90 — that is, most of the spending growth was simply a matter of keeping up with the population and inflation.

Krugman's point is of course that the increase of real per capita spending was SMALL (only 10%) and not large, contrary to those who blame excessive spending for the budget crisis.

But, in National Review, after a careless and incomplete reading of this CBP document, Luskin mistakenly calculated that the increase was 13.4% rather than 10%. Luskin then falsely accused Krugman of purposefully understating the spending increase in order to minimize the role of state spending in the budget crisis:

". . . Now let's see ... I'm no Princeton professor — I'm a Yale drop-out, in fact — but I think Hogberg is right when he says that spending growth from $1,950 to $2,211 is 13.4 percent, not "only 10 percent." How can this be? Is it an innocent error? Is it rounding? Or maybe Krugman thinks that 10 percent sounds better with the word "only" in front of it than 13.4 percent does. . . .

If Luskin had bothered to read the entire CBP document carefully, however, he would have noticed that part of what he included as spending was actually a tax cut (see here for details), and that the correct amount that the document yields is not 13.4% but roughly 8.4%! Therefore, when Krugman wrote 10% in his 8.1.03 NYT article, he was actually overstating and definitely *not understating* the the percentage differential of real per capita spending between 1989-90 and 2002-03, relative to the 8.4% that the CBP document yielded.

But now Luskin has abandoned his efforts to accuse Krugman of purposefully understating it, and Luskin has resorted to saying essentially "Understate? Overstate? What's the difference? 10% still isn't exactly equal to 8.4%":

It used to be that Krugman simply ignored my critiques of his lies and his errors in haughty silence -- heaven knows the corrections page of the Times did. When he responded at all it was with big-time Princeton economics professor elephant-shit, and once even an attempt at humor. How different it is today, when he finally responds to my repeated accusations that he miscalculated the growth of California state spending as 10%, when his own cited source has it at 13.4%. His response? He links to the home page of the Krugman fan-site maintained by his toady "Bobby," who in turn links to the Calpundit blog who calculates it as 8.4%. Am I "missing the point," as Krugman says? I don't see how -- 10% isn't 8.4% any more than it's 13.4%. Krugman's wrong either way -- and the pitiful thing about it is that it seems to comfort him simply to be wrong in a different way than I said he was. That, now, is equivalent in his mind to being "right."

Luskin is missing the point indeed. First, let's note that, in general, there is nothing wrong with using an approximation like 10% for a number as close as 8.4%, so this is an utterly trivial thing to argue about in the first place.

Also, again, Krugman's point was that the per capita state spending increase of California was SMALL and NOT LARGE, and that spending was not excessive. For the purposes of making this point, 10% is a fine appoximation for 8.4%, not only because the two are so close, but also because 10% overestimates spending slightly and, thus, is slightly less favorable than 8.4% would be, in terms of buttressing Krugman's point. If Krugman had instead cited the more accurate figure of 8.4% this would only make stronger, relative to 10%, Krugman's case that California state spending was not excessive. Unfortunately, Luskin is too over-eager to convict Krugman to notice how ridiculous and petty his own argument really is.

Finally, anyone who followed the "divide by ten" debate knows that Luskin got his head handed to him, and that Luskin succeeded only in exposing his own appalling ignorance of basic macro -- yet, amazingly, NRO continues to employ this incompetent ignoramus as an economics commentator. (A quick summary of the economics of the "divide by ten" debate is here and scroll down on this page to the May updates for more).



Hey Folks! Two new posts from the Official Site. The first is called State Tax Burdens and is in the American Economy Section

The second is has the the first Review of The Great Unraveling which is in the Personal Section.

Finally, I put the critique of Luskin below as its own file, which is easier to read



Recently, Don Luskin has been misleading his NRO readers about this 8.1.03 Krugman column:

". . . ZAP! Krugman Truth Squad member David Hogberg caught Krugman in a humiliatingly simple math error, which surely the Times will be obliged to correct. Krugman wrote,

As analysts at the nonpartisan California Budget Project point out, real state spending per capita was only 10 percent higher in 2002-03 than it was in 1989-90 — that is, most of the spending growth was simply a matter of keeping up with the population and inflation.

But Hogberg went to the CBP's website to fact-check this claim (Lord know the Times won't bother to do it). Hogberg noted in his Cornfield Commentary blog that the CBP stated that

Per capita spending was $2,211 in 2002-03, as compared to $1,950 in 1989-90 (in 2002-03 dollars).

Now let's see ... I'm no Princeton professor — I'm a Yale drop-out, in fact — but I think Hogberg is right when he says that spending growth from $1,950 to $2,211 is 13.4 percent, not "only 10 percent." How can this be? Is it an innocent error? Is it rounding? Or maybe Krugman thinks that 10 percent sounds better with the word "only" in front of it than 13.4 percent does. . . ."

Thanks to an observation by CalPundit, we can see why Luskin is wrong. If you read the *entire* CBP document, you will see this passage: "When the state lowered the Vehicle License Fee (VLF), it 'backfilled' lost revenues to local governments (VLF revenues flow to local governments). The state spent $3.9 billion to reimburse local governments for VLF losses in 2002-03, but had no such costs in 1989-90, which was prior to the rate reduction."

This VLF decrease is essentially a tax cut, and the $3.9 billion of reimbursed money should definitely *not* be counted as an expenditure. So when we knock off the cost per capita of this reimbursement, we see that 2002-2003 per capita real spending was not $2211 but less: [$2211 - ((3.9 billion)/(Population of Calfornia during 2002-2003))].

A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that, if CA's population is roughly 40 million (an overstatement) for 2002-2003, 3.9 billion/40 million = $97.5 per capita which was included in the $2211 of per capita spending for 2002-03 but should not be.

Therefore the more accurate figure to derive from this CBP document is (2211-97.5)/1950 = 1.08410 and the more accurate percentage difference for the CBP document is roughly 8.4%!

Therefore, when Krugman wrote 10% in his 8.1.03 NYT article, he was actually overstating and definitely *not understating* the percentage differential of real per capita spending between 1989-90 and 2002-03, relative to the 8.4% that the CBP document yielded.

(Note that 40 million is an overstatement of the actual population of California and implies a smaller decrease due to the VLF reimbursement and hence higher real per capita spending for 2002-2003. Even under this assumption, which is charitable to Luskin's desired conclusion, the per capita real spending differential is less than 10%).



Hey Folks! Paul appeared on Nightline on 8.8.03 to discuss unemployment in the U.S. It is in the American Economy Section

Also we have Brad DeLong commenting on Donald Luskin:

This Has to Be a Joke. Doesn't It?

So I make my first expedition in time out of mind to Donald Luskin's website. What do I find there? I discover that he is very unhappy because a bunch of people (of which I am one) have been worrying that real interest rates have been "too volatile" recently.

What do we mean by "too volatile"? Well, we think that real interest rates should be determined by Federal Reserve policy and by opportunities for profitable investment produced by expectations of economic growth, and that nominal interest rates should equal real interest rates plus expected inflation. And we are worried because it looks as though recent large and volatile swings in interest rates have been driven not by changes in Fed policy, expectations of investment opportunities, growth, and inflation, but rather by "technical" factors in the bond market--specifically, the endogenous and poorly-understood duration of mortgage-backed securities.

And a financial market that is feeding the rest of the economy the "wrong" prices--prices that don't accurately indicate fundamentals but are distorted by technical factors, noise, and bubbles--is not doing its job, and is leading the rest of us to make mistakes about where to allocate productive resources.

How does Luskin respond to this worry? First, he accuses New York Times writer and fellow worrier Gretchen Morgenson of plagiarism. Second, he accuses her of a desire to nationalize all of Wall Street. Third, he says that what we worry about simply didn't happen: there were no recent large and volatile swings in interest rates. There were swings in bond yields, but bond yields are not interest rates:

The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid: ...However mortgage rates and Treasury rates are determined, neither of them are interest rates... they are both nothing more than the yields of particular securities that reflect interest rates... as stocks, and... everything else... reflects interest rates.... Interest rates are an abstraction. They are, by definition, the opportunity cost of money across time...

I had never before imagined that anybody would ever try to draw a distinction between a yield on a bond and an "interest rate." I have no idea what such a distinction might be, any more than I have an idea how one might distinguish between cane sugar and C12H22O11...

Posted by DeLong at 02:30 PM | Permanent Link



Hey Folks! New post from the Official Site about heat casualties in Iraq which is in the American Economy Section

Also we have Atrios commenting on the low quality of Donald Luskin's NRO columns:

They Pay This Guy?

God, I'm at least 1.1X as smart as Donald Luskin. Why won't someone pay me to crank out stupidity day after day like this crap. Here Mr. Luskin has a problem with pronouns.

Krugman clamed to have spoken to a soldier just back from Iraq (wait a second ... Krugman said just last week that "we're stuck in Iraq indefinitely" ... what's this guy doing back home hob-nobbing with economics professors?).

You know, "we" as in the "U.S. military," or "we" as in our country.

Later Luskin goes on to complain about Krugman's use of the pronoun "one."

It doesn't get any stupider than this, folks. The National Review has become dumber than your typical talk radio program. Frightening. They say the problem with stupid people is they're too stupid to recognize just how stupid they are. Someone at the National Review has to know what fools Luskin makes them look. Or maybe not. This is the place that pays K. Lo, Jonah Goldberg, and the rest of idiots over at the Corner.

The scary part is how these gung ho Uber-Patriots feel free to trash the honesty of the troops in order to try and make the universe conform to their twisted notion of reality.

Krugman responds to his increasingly desperate critics.

Honestly, folks, if liberals wanted to plant a mole at NRO to embarass and damage NRO's reputation, they couldn't do better than what Luskin is doing right now.




Via Brad DeLong we have:

Downward Spiral

Kevin Drum's jaw drops in amazement that National Review can't find anyone smarter than Donald Luskin to write for it:

CalPundit: Watching the Watchman: Poor old Donald Luskin... Paul Krugman... said that California's spending growth between 1989-90 and 2002-03 was 10% after adjusting for inflation and population growth. Luskin says that's not true: Krugman's source actually pegs the growth at 13.4%... rounding off to 10% isn't that big a deal... swept away by the excitement of finally finding a genuine inaccuracy in one of Krugman's columns, Luskin pulls a full frontal Dowd by demanding that the New York Times publish a retraction [of]... Krugman's flatly deceptive claim that this growth "was simply a matter of keeping up with the population and inflation"... Would Paul Krugman "flatly" claim that California's spending growth was a simple matter of keeping up with population and inflation? Of course not. Here's what Krugman said: "As analysts at the nonpartisan California Budget Project point out, real state spending per capita was only 10 percent higher in 2002-03 than it was in 1989-90 -- that is, most of the spending growth was simply a matter of keeping up with the population and inflation."... So why did Luskin decide to leave out the word "most"?... Answers are left as exercises for the reader.... UPDATE: Weirder and weirder. Luskin emails Glenn Reynolds to say that of course he understood exactly what Krugman was saying, but many other people were confused and Krugman ought to write more clearly.... But if he understood what Krugman was saying, why did he write the paragraph above? And why did he Dowdify the quote? UPDATE 2:... $4 billion of California's "spending increase" is... weird accounting: vehicle fees were reduced in the 1990s.... Although this is actually a tax cut, here in Lotus Land it is counted as a spending increase. If you remove this, the real per capita spending increase is-- ta da! -- about 10%, so it appears that Luskin doesn't even get credit for the alleged arithmetic error. Poor guy.

I've said it before and I've said it again. There are lots of very smart right-wing economists who would love to write for National Review -- and who would not embarrass the magazine the way Luskin and his cohorts do.

Posted by DeLong at August 12, 2003 12:40 PM | TrackBack



I just wanted to note these two blog passages regarding Don Luskin's competance as an economic commentator and Krugman critic, in case any of our readers missed them. The first from Atrios

Shorter Donald Luskin

My readers are too stupid to understand what Paul Krugman writes, and it is therefore fair for me to accuse him of misleading them based on their ignorant misinterpretations.

And the second from Matthew Yglesias

Will They Learn?

Check out the update to this InstaPost which appears to suggest that someday Glenn Reynolds may learn the lesson that while Paul Krugman is an actual economist (albeit a shrill one), Donald Luskin is a ranting, inept, hack who has trouble grasping elementary math.



We have a new post from the Official Site about about Ahnuld's run for CA governor which is in the Personal Section.



Second post of the day from the Official Site. It is about Social Security and Medicare and is in the American Economy Section.

Krugman has also updated the piece from earlier today.



Hey Folks! We have five new posts from the Official Site. The first is from today responding to some fuzzy math that showed up in a letter to the Times. We also have a piece about the size of the Social Security over the next 75 years compared to the size of the much bigger Bush tax cuts. And we have a piece debunking some of the economic hyperbole about our "soaring" recovery. These three are in the American Economy Section.

We also have a piece about the role of ideology in Argentina's currency board. It is archived in the Crises Section.

We have a piece where Krugman praises Barron's columnist Alan Abelson. It is stored in the Personal Section

Finally, I apologize for the slow posts recently. I've been busy with summer classes the past two months, but now I'm done. And I will return to my normal policy of regular posting, so that you can receive Krugman articles and news as soon as possible.



2 new posts from the Official Site. The first is about who caused the current recession and the second is about about the Krugmans' vacation in France. They are both in the Personal Section



Hey Folks! On 7.17.03 Paul went on CNN to debate Congressman David Dreier (R-CA) about Bush economic policy and how to get out of our current malaise

At last, we also have Will Dana's 5.29.03 Rolling Stone interview with Krugman about Bush economic policy

They are both in the American Economy Section



Hey Folks! We have 10 new Krugman articles today in total. As usual, I'll just provide the dates of the articles, and you can find each article on the page for its section

I've posted 6 new articles in American Economy Section, whose dates are 3.25.03, 12.30.92, 2.06.96, 2.21.03, 5.3.03, and one which is a collection of commentary from NIghtly Business Report, which is all the way at the bottom of the page dated 1993 - 2002

There are also 4 new articles Economic Theory Section, whose dates are 8.27.95, 12.12.96, 1.30.97, 6.20.99



Hey Folks! Paul went on The Brian Lehrer show on 6.12.03, and you can find the interview in the Videos Section



New from the Official Site: Krugman said a while ago, in his debate with Ben Stein, that Milton Friedman's monetarism (that is using the quantity of a monetary aggregate as a target for monetary policy) is in fact naive. Well, guess who agrees with Krugman?



Hey Folks our reader who calls himself "1984" has found the missing MSNBC article that MSNBC removed from its site, which was mentioned in Krugman's 4.29.03 article

Also, our reader Vivek Oberoi has found this Krugman paper on economic geography, which is in the Theory Section



Paul discusses his new book in this post from the Official Site

Also in the Book section is a link to the page for Paul's new book which is at Books Section



Hey Folks! You too can analyze fiscal policy if you read this new post from the Official Site, in which Paul Krugman provides some of his sources for his articles on fiscal policy



My prediction was correct. When trying to reply to my 5.21.03 post, Luskin was unable to rebutt any of my arguments refuting his tendentious commentary on the 1.31.03 interview. Just as Luskin was dead wrong on the "divide-by-ten" criticism (see here), Luskin knows that he is wrong on this one too. So now that we've caught Luskin's mistake, Luskin will say anything to divert attention from the issue that he raised in the first place, namely the contents of the 1.31.03 interview. In other words, Luskin doesn't have a leg to stand on, and, as he showed today, Luskin is trying to distract his readers from this fact by playing the Clinton card, name-calling, and other cowardly tactics to avoid the issue at hand. And there is even a funny twist about Bill Clinton and yours truly




Hey folks! We've got a big Krugman article on deflation in today's New York Times.



Check out the April 30 IMF report on deflation. I know that Donald Luskin is too lazy to read an IMF report, much less learn basic macroeconomics before he mouths off, but he might see some similarities between the IMF's diagrams and something he saw on Krugman's Official Page . . .



More tendentious idiocy from Donald Luskin: Luskin now claims that the following passage of this Krugman television debate against Robert Barro (for which Luskin conveniently leaves off the last three sentences in his dishonest commentary) is somehow a "confession" that he "lied" in the April 22 article

KRUGMAN: You know, people talk as if the period from '92 to 2000 was a period when people weren't working hard, people weren't investing, productivity wasn't growing because the incentives weren't there. It seems like we have a lot of incentives in this system already. What we have right now is a shortfall in demand. People aren't spending enough, and what we've got is a plan that really does almost nothing about this. And meanwhile, of course, it's an enormous expense. The administration's own estimate -- we're now told we don't know how they get this -- is that this thing is going to add half a million jobs in the next year. Now you take that or leave that, but a $674 billion plan for 500,000 jobs, even with fuzzy math that's more than $1 million per job. Something is wrong here.

COLVIN: Well, but it's going to go for longer than just this one year, right?

KRUGMAN: Well, yeah, but then the question is, if we're thinking about the long run, we've got to ask ourselves how are we going to pay for this thing? We've already seen surpluses give way to deficits. This thing, because of the arithmetic, compound interest and all that, is going to leave us with $900 billion of extra debt by ten years from now, just about when the Baby Boomers start hitting the Social Security system and Medicare. You know, I agree that actually if there were no costs, if there were no tradeoffs, it might be worth doing something about dividend taxation, but...

Now let's see what's wrong with Luskin's dishonest claim. Let's just note the obvious: Colvin's question was phrased in such a broad and general way that there was very little reason to think that the question had anything to do with a failure to "divide by ten." Especially, let's remember that this debate was on January 31, and Luskin didn't make his "divide by ten" criticism until April. So back then, nobody was even thinking about this ridiculous criticism, which was completely incorrect anyway (as we've already shown here and see below).. Now I have no idea what Colvin's real intentions were, concerning the meaning of this question, and neither does Donald Luskin. But, it's pretty obvious from Krugman's answer that Krugman interpreted Colvin's question (probably correctly) as a general broadbrush garden-variety question, tantamount to, "Well these tax cuts DO have effects also in the long run, don't they?" In this fast-paced television debate with Robert Barro, it's obvious that Luskin's selective interpretation of Colvin's question never occurred to Krugman, and likely not to Barro, or even Colvin himself -- would it occur to you, if you were in mid-television-debate? If indeed Colvin's question meant what Luskin says it means, why is it that neither Colvin nor Bob Barro corrected Krugman when his answer misinterpreted the question?

And just a comment about twisting other people's language in order to smear them with false accusations: I think that it has become easier for idiots like Luskin to do this, especially after Clinton's "meaning of is" comment. If you try to rebutt someone who is twisting your language, your opponent will invariably accuse you of being "Clintonian" for doing so. Thus your opponent can continue to smear you with impunity. This Luskin smear right now is a very good example of this. Now that I am pointing out Luskin's error of simple third-grade reading comprehension, let's see how long it takes Luskin to play to the Clinton card.

That is, if he even has the guts to reply. Of course if Luskin does say anything, his remarks will, as usual, not have any substance. He will simply paint over his superficiality with the usual name-calling and other cowardly tactics.



Here's my letter to National Review Online demanding a retraction and apology for Don Luskin's complete dereliction of journalistic duty:

Dear National Review Online,

I am writing to inform you of a repeated error by your columnist Donald Luskin, in which he accuses Paul Krugman of forgetting to divide by ten in his April 22, 2003 New York Times article (and which Mr. Luskin characterizes as "lying"). On April 28, I wrote a short article showing very simply why Mr. Luskin's criticism of Dr. Krugman was completely incorrect, which can be found at

My article was even linked to by Paul Krugman himself on his own Princeton homepage and mentioned on Mr. Luskin's blog. Unfortunately, Mr. Luskin resorted to name-calling instead of replying to the contents of my article. While saying the exact same thing that Paul Krugman has been saying from day one on his Official Site, I wrote my piece without models to make it more readable and to avoid Mr. Luskin's childish attacks on formal modelling.

I would appreciate it if, in the interest of balance, you would post a link to my article or something to the effect of what it says. I also ask that, in the interest of accuracy and fairness, you post a retraction and apology for Luskin's accusing Paul Krugman of lying, when in fact Dr. Krugman was implementing a very simple and mainstream concept of macroeconomics.


Robert Youngs Pelgrift, III

Webmaster of the Unofficial Paul Krugman Archive

Here is the link to Luskin's blog in which mentions my article and namecalls:

Here is the link to Krugman's Princeton homepage



New post of Krugman's 1.31.03 debate with Robert Barro on Wall Street Week, which I've put in American Economy Section

By the way, even Luskin's own anti-Krugman allies are speaking out that Luskin has no idea what he is talking about. The people at Rand Jottings' so-called "Krugman Truth Squad" say that "strictly on the grounds of the macro economic theory being contended, Krugman right (sic) and Luskin is dead wrong. . . .".



Read Brad DeLong's new post in his semi-daily journal regarding why Donald Luskin was dead wrong when he accused Krugman of failing to divide by ten. Simply put, Luskin doesn't know enough economics to understand that, once we are no longer near a liquidity trap, the Federal Reserve determines the level of employment, including those 1.4 million jobs. Therefore THE PRESENCE OF THE TAX CUT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE AS TO WHETHER THOSE 1.4 MILLION JOBS EXIST, ONCE YOU ARE NO LONGER NEAR THE LIQUIDITY TRAP.

After being thoroughly discredited by Krugman, DeLong, Demosthenes, Dwight Meredith, Max Sawicky, the Unofficial Site, et al., even Luskin knows that he has lost the substantive part of the debate. So now Luskin figures that, if he can't win on substance, he'll try to win a publicity war against Krugman by repeating the discredited "divide by ten" line on television and NRO. Luskin thinks that if he spouts his dishonest smear of Krugman long enough and loud enough, eventually people will believe him. And of course Luskin is hoping that all of this will prop up his own mediocre weblog and flagging career in political and economic commentary.

DeLong also discusses Luskin's and National Review's smear campaign against good economists and good economics.



On May 14, Paul appeared on The News Hour on PBS to debate Allan Meltzer, and we've got the clip in Videos Section



We've got a new post from the Official Site correcting Mickey Kaus's idea that he hasn't been writing about the liquidity trap



Hey Folks! New from the Official Site, we've got an excellent summary of the Jobs, Jobs, Jobs controversy. Paul Krugman plays the part of Arthur and Don Luskin is the Black Knight. Read the entire thing. It is really quite fitting.

Also, from the Official Site, we have a post on the economic history of serfdom.

And more from Demosthenes on Don Luskin, who is not only a follower of supply-side crank ideology, but also a Gold Bug!:

It would appear that Luskin has taken his little "I disproved you because I say so" game to NRO, where he basically restates his pseudo-arguments against Mr. Krugman in a new forum. He adds a few new twists, however:

Since we first exposed Krugman's egregious lies about President Bush's tax cuts in his April 22 column, he has now published no fewer than seven increasingly defensive and desperate responses on his personal website...His seven responses have been spread over five postings (one, two, three, four, and five). Since we reported on his first response, his strategy has been to conceal his tax-cut falsehood under an increasingly smelly heap of academic economic jargon, charts, and graphs — all designed to bamboozle the unsophisticated into thinking there's a rationale that explains his lie, and that he had that rationale in mind all along.
"Smelly heap", "bamboozle"...hey, the grizzy prospector is back!

This is almost a direct quotation of what he had written on his blog about the subject. The reaction is the same as well- asserting "he's increasingly desperate etc." doesn't prove Donald's argument. Never has, never will. (he did repeat his old argument, but not the refutations, which says a lot about how well he's engaged Prof. Krugman's able refutations.) Still, What's new here isn't Luskin's arguments, but the forum given them. To be honest, I had been a little worried about having placed Luskin front-and-center in the Movement marching order, and had figured that maybe he was a simple transitory crank used to attack the Movement's enemies. A man hauled out for partisan purposes is a pawn, not a player, and should be acknowledged as such. That NRO gave him this bully pulpit, however, implies their support of his arguments.

He certainly thinks he's a player:

The good news is that Krugman is clearly shaken by the new experience of having somebody dare to challenge his insouciant lying. He's even starting to get personal — referring to me in his latest posting as his "stalker-in-chief." But he's definitely feeling chastised. In his last three columns for the Times he hasn't dared to mention Bush's tax plan.
I'll repeat what I said earlier: "Paul Krugman isn't the vainglorious one here". It's hilarious, by the by, that a supposed economics expert hasn't the faintest clue about specious relationships... it's just possible, maybe, that Krugman might be writing about other subjects because he wants to. Luskin assigns himself too much credit. Whether it's because he's tendentious or just credulous is hard to say.

He also goes on to describe Krugman, accurately, as "America's most dangerous pundit", describes his influence (while totally and conveniently ignoring the political machine the good Professor is up against), and brings out a hilarous laundry list of attacks on Krugman, demonstrating:

-his inability to tell the difference between bug spray and mustard gas;

-his ignorance of the "A.W.O.L. Bush" issue, and related ignorance of the loose-at-best connection between NYTimes columnists and the host paper- he is free to disagree with the conclusions of others at the paper, as Prof. Krugman pointed out in an article on Prof. Krugman's own website;

-his eagerness to push his own (donation driven, mind you) website on someone else's forum and on someone else's dime;

-his inability to look at a photograph (for more on this, check out this Hesiod entry);

-and finally, his astonishing ability to take a column and turn it into a blog entry, as he spends most of the column quoting other people's complaints and comments. I've long been concerned about the column-esque nature of my blog entries, but it takes some chutzpah to do the reverse!

Edit: apparently, he's been doing that since March, as his first column on Krugman was little more than quotations from Matthew Hoy and Robert Musil. Both are pretty weak sources. Hoy is a staunch Krugman attacker, and one of the very first Krugman stalkers I debunked nearly a full year ago. Heck, at one point I was greatly amused to discover he had mixed up the WTO and WHO! Robert Musil is also about the last person I'd call on to "fact-check" anything, considering his complete inability to understand political theory, political philosophy, the international system and international law is something that I had ended up illustrating in abundant detail.

With opponents like that, who needs allies?

Further Edit: Permalinks remain bloggered. Ugh. The archive page with Hoy would be here, and Musil here and here.

. . .

Free advice to Jonah Goldberg and the NRO crew: if he's a player, take him aside and remind him that he's making NRO look foolish. If he's a pawn, then just take him off the board. It's getting sad.

(One final note: has anybody else checked the NRO Author Archive for Mr. Luskin? The man doesn't just spend a lot of time attacking Krugman, since March 20th, he's done practically nothing else! Of course, considering that he came out as a Gold Bug, a species of crank that occupies an even lower ecological position than supply-siders, maybe he realized that being the Movement's pet anti-Krugman attack dog is a superior position.)

. . .

Dwight Meredith (of the always interesting and often riveting Policy, Law, and Autism blog) wrote an excellent comment on the tax cut in my comments section that I'd like to reproduce here:

Luskin should quit while he is behind. For anyone who has taken the time to read any of PK's non-NYT writing, the liquidy trap argument was obvious. Luskin, of course, can't be bothered to even click through his own link to read the CEA report before relying on it.

Also note that Luskin has not bothered to support his claim of 5.4 million jobs created by the tax cut after he got caught speeding.

Finally, the alleged "big lie" that Luskin keeps harping on is that PK cited the cost/job without citing the cost per job year. Once again, if Luskin would do the work, it would become apparent that the cost per job year does not look like such a deal. Lets take the best case scenario for Luskin based on the CEA report.

The tax cut will create 700,000 jobs that will disappear within 3 years. That is a total of 2.1 million job/years. In addition, the tax cut will create another 700,000 that the CEA report does not specify an end date for. The Krugman liquidity trap argument suggests that those jobs will also disappear relatively soon but assume for the purpose of argument that they last a full ten years. That would result in 7 million job/years for the ten year period. Thus, the maximum number of job/years that could be created is 9.1 million. Call it 10 million job years to get a round number.

The cost of the tax cut is $726 billion over then ten year period. The cost per job year would be $72,600 of tax cuts for each $40,000 of wages.

That can hardly be called a good deal. It is only if Luskin's 5.4 million job fiction (which the CEA report flatly denies and which Luskin has been unwilling to try to defend) is accepted that his argument makes any sense at all. Luskin is not engaged in a debate over economics. He is simply promoting a faith based initiative.

Hah! Nice analogy. I also liked this bit from John Isbell:

"Your Honor, I'm just a simple unfrozen caveman lawyer. Your world frightens and confuses me, with its highfaluting jargonized academic theory."
That's from Phil Hartman, and I still miss him, but it looks like "Unfrozen cavemen lawyer" is alive and well.

(Except for one thing... if I recall the setup correctly, didn't the lawyer actually finish his law education?)

Anyway, thanks to Atrios, Jesse Taylor, Bobby (from the unofficial Paul Krugman website), and Kevin Drum for linking to me.



New from the Official Site! The Fed realizes what a serious problem the liquidity trap really is

I've got more Demosthenes discussing the hapless Don Luskin. Luskin of course continues to make a fool of himself and has become a major embarassment, even by National Review standards:

"I should probably leave the guy alone, it's getting embarrassing, but I wanted to bring up another bit of Luskin wisdom:

What I really said was that Krugman's responses to my challenge to him have all been to kick up a lot of highfaluting jargonized academic theory to offer an after-the-fact and entirely conjectural explanation of a claim that was initially presented in his column as nothing more than common-sense open-and-shut arithmetic -- that Bush's tax cuts spent $500,000 each to create 1.4 million $40,000 jobs.
"a lot of highfaluting jargonized academic theory"

Unless Donald happens to be a grizzly 1890s prospector, that's one of the most profoundly stupid things I've ever seen written about economics. That's saying a lot: I've seen an awful lot of stupidity over the years I've been on the Internet. What Donald either is in denial about or doesn't get is that Prof. Krugman isn't offering any kind of "after-the-fact" explanation- he is, as he has repeatedly stated, merely describing the assumptions that underlie the thinking of himself and many (if not most) other economists. The assumption was always there, merely unstated. Donald's attack appears to have come partially out of his ignorance of these commonplace assumptions, partially due to his being financially, emotionally and intellectually wedded to a crank economic theory that most respectable economists wouldn't touch, and partially due to old fashioned cognitive dissonance related to both of these. Fortunately, those of us who are neither ignorant, tendentious, nor so brittle as to see debate as a threat to our sense of self can see this for the sad spectacle that it is. Sorry, Donald, it wasn't that he lied, it's that you dropped out of Yale before anybody taught you any economics.

Does it matter that this particular species of elephant shit happens to be a "signature academic issue" for Krugman? For the seemingly infinitely vain Krugman, it does. He writes,

"...I set out to write down a fully worked-out, no loose ends model to show that liquidity traps can't really happen. (The purpose of such a model is to help you think clearly about an issue - realism is not the point.) To my surprise it showed that liquidity traps can indeed happen; Japan's trap was real. And Japan remains stuck in that trap. That in itself makes the liquidity trap a very important subject..."

What makes it very important? The fact that Paul Krugman created a model? A model about which he himself says "realism is not the point"? Stop the presses! I can see the headlines now... "Economist Creates New Model! World Leaders Rush to Princeton Despite Non-Realism!"

And with this, Luskin keeps on digging deeper and deeper. The point of an economic model is not that it is a reflection of all the factors of an economy, but that it illustrates the relationships that make up parts of that economy. By understanding the relationship in the simplified realm of modelling, you can figure out how it works in the "real world". Krugman used this to great effect when talking about the division of resources between secondary, primary, and tertiary industry using a "hotdogs and buns" model. While this model was hardly "realistic", it built a very compelling picture of why it's important not to confuse job gains and losses in one sector of the economy with the economy as a whole.

More importantly, where is the vanity in Prof. Krugman attempting to disprove liquidity traps and discovering that he was wrong? Where is the vanity in working from that piece of knowledge derived from an admitted (and corrected) error? Especially considering that everybody and his dog was lauding Prof. Krugman for his insight regarding Japan's economy, I'd say it takes some level of humility to admit that this knowledge comes from being proven wrong. Somebody as tendentious and brittle as Luskin has demonstrated himself as being time and again would have ignored the results, spun them, or simple let it drop. I'm sure that the vast majority of Movementarians would. Prof. Krugman did not, and admits it when rebutting a dishonest and tendentious attacker to boot!

To repeat a variation on a phrase I've grown attached to, Paul Krugman isn't the vainglorious one here."

Again, I couldn't have said it better myself.



Hey folks! Paul appeared on CNN International this past Saturday, where he debated the rationale for the war in Iraq

Also, I am very proud of the link to my critique of Luskin that Paul has put in on the Official Site. Thank you Paul.

By the way, here's Don Luskin gloating about a victory that exists only in his own imagination:


Do you call it a "response" when someone's been shot in the forehead and his dead body twitches a couple times? If you do, then you'd say that Paul Krugman has "responded" again to my bull's-eye exposé (blog version and National Review Online version) of the multiple lies and errors in his April 22 New York Times column. . . ."

It's sad that Mr. Luskin (who apparently must be rather disturbed) has been reduced to violent, and frankly kinda weird, delusions of killing his enemy. Anyway, haven't we seen this kind of scam before?




Hey folks! New from the Official Site, Krugman writes about the liquidity trap, Don Luskin, and your and my favorite substance (drum roll) . . .



I've just put in a new post from the Official Site that incorporates deflation into the macro model that Krugman discussed during the recent 4.22.03 article controversy

Also, the blogger Demosthenes has written on this controversy, including my critique of Luskin's "divide by ten" remarks and Luskin's name-calling reply to it. I especially enjoyed this part of Demosthenes' commentary:

". . .

Add the woeful shot at the maintainer of the Unofficial Paul Krugman archive as being "infinitely sycophantic" and the spectacle of David attempting to fell Goliath by flinging his own rancid faeces is quite complete.

As Dwight Meredith said, Krugman isn't the liar here.

Edit: Bobby, the aforementioned "infinitely sycophantic" maintainer, actually illustrated the whole thing quite well:

[Demosthenes then quotes my critique of Luskin, which can be read here]

'Nuff said. This is probably why Luskin had to namecall... "Bobby" had his number, and Luskin knows it. His only hope was flung faeces, counting on the idea that two opposite ideas will produce the expectation that the truth lies at the middle, even if one side is completely fallacious

. . ."

I couldn't have said it better myself :)



Hey folks! I just wanted to put a link here to Brad DeLong's Blog, which is regularly updated and by far best economics blog on the web.



Hey Folks! From the Official Site, we've got a new post about the Jobs, Jobs, Jobs controversy. Please note the recent update to the piece.



I put aside my 4.28.03 comment on the "divide by ten" thing in its own more readable file which can be read here.

Apparently Don Luskin read my rather dry (and I think civil) comments and has replied to them with name-calling. He's also taken to dredging up anonymous Princeton students to attack Krugman's teaching of all things. I have a novel idea. Let's stick to economics and policy.



Hey Folks Krugman's done a new piece regarding this same topic. Please note the recent update.



I just wanted to say something about this "divide by ten" controversy. One Krugman critic writes in NRO regarding the Jobs, Jobs, Jobs Followup:

"Krugman's theory asserts that there would be no more jobs beyond the 1.4 million created in the first two years of the Bush plan (I don't agree with that, but let's stipulate it). While there would be no more jobs, he never asserts that those initial 1.4 million jobs will vanish at any time over the then years of the plan. They will be there generating $40,000 wages each year for ten years. So we still have to divide the ten-year cost of the tax cut by ten, because those jobs will be around for ten years."


To see why here's a thought experiment:

Let's say we pass the tax cut in Spring 2003. It's now the end of 2004, and, by now, we are no longer close to a liquidity trap. This means that the Fed once again can bring us back to full employment through monetary policy, whereas monetary policy was relatively ineffective during the trap. For the sake of argument, up until now the tax cut has created 1.4 million jobs. We are now faced with two choices:

(1) Repeal the tax cut. Thereafter, we let expansionary monetary policy maintain the 1.4 million extra jobs and create any new jobs until we have the unemployment rate that the Fed desires. Notice that, in the years after the trap is over, those 1.4 million jobs remain although the tax cut is gone.

(2) Keep the tax cut in place. However, the Fed will match this choice with forgone interest rate cuts or interest rate hikes. The Fed will conduct a monetary policy that maintains those 1.4 million jobs and create new ones until we have the unemployment rate that the Fed desires. So those 1.4 million jobs remain with or without the tax cut.

Just to make it crystal clear, let's put it together: In the years we are near the liquidity trap, under our assumptions, the presence of the tax cut creates 1.4 million jobs. After the trap the presence of the tax cut not only makes no difference in new job creation, it makes no difference as to whether those 1.4 million jobs still exist thereafter.

Therefore the 1.4 million jobs can be attributed to tax cuts ONLY IN THE YEARS WE ARE NEAR THE LIQUIDITY TRAP AND NOT AFTER THE TRAP ENDS.

Please do not fail to note that the time when the trap ends is exogenous to this model and, here, is independent of whether or not a tax cut is passed. Indeed Krugman says, "Now most forecasts presume that we'll be out of the trap by next year - that is, before most of the supposed job creation from the tax cut takes place. Even if you're more pessimistic than that, we're probably looking at only 1-2 years when fiscal policy creates jobs." I am assuming that these forecasts do not assume this tax cut which has not passed yet. Anyway, sorry if I botched or misinterpreted any of this.



Hey Folks! There's a new Krugman video of his 4.22.03 lecture "What Went Wrong" at New School University in the video section.



Apparently some people have been accusing Krugman of bad arithmetic in his 4.22.03 NYT article. Click here to read Krugman's debunking of them.



Here's the transcript of Paul Krugman's 4.20.03 appearance on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. I've posted it in the American Economy Section



Hey Folks, I've posted 10 new Krugman articles. Below are their Sections and dates.

Global: 10.24.95

Cranks: 4.13.98

American Economy: 8.23.93, 9.29.02, 4.13.03

Crises: 9.11.89, 5.5.97

International Trade: 11.5.93, 3.7.94, 3.25.94,



Oh yeah, I forgot to mention one more cost to the Iraq war: We're distracted from paying attention to things like this (also look at the bill that they are debating and the comments of Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA))



I am not sure how the costs of our present activities in Iraq compare with the costs of staying out. I know the war is almost over and it's a fait accomplis, but I was wondering if I could provoke a discussion on the message board.

Costs of staying out: I know that staying out of Iraq might send a message that "We don't want more terrorists to attack the U.S. as a result of an Iraqi invasion, and so terrorism is an effective means of deterring us from attacking you." Therefore this encourages terror. Also, we know Iraq supports terrorism financially and at least we used to think Iraq would arm terrorists with nuclear biological and chemical weapons (though we can't seem to find them). Also, there is the opportunity cost of failing to turn Iraq into a prosperous democracy as an example for the rest of the Middle East to follow (I don't take this argument seriously, but, according to Josh Marshall's Washington Monthly cover story this month, many people on the right do). Of course their is the opportunity cost of the welfare of the Iraqi people and failing to achieve Iraqi liberation from a murderous, anti-Semitic, and genocidal dictator.

Costs of being in Iraq (and attacking other countries in the Middle East in the future): Our activities in Iraq might cause terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and Islamic Jihad to activate any terror cells they have in the U.S. It might inspire radical uprising leading to the replacement of present Middle Eastern governments with something even more anti-Western than what exists now (of course people on the right might argue that they might be replaced with govts that are more pro-Western). If the first Gulf War inspired the creation and helped the recruiting of radical anti-American Islamist terrorist groups, would this new war do the same? If the U.S. angers its allies, they won't cooperate with us or help in the war on terror, which makes another attack more likely. We are providing other terrorist states, who know expect us to attack them, with an incentive to arm themselves to the teeth and try harder to develop even more advanced WMDs. This makes any terrorists they might arm even more dangerous (this is sort of like an arms race). The EU and possibly China will see our actions, with some justification, as unprovoked aggression. As a result, they will want to build up their own militaries so that they can challenge the U.S. as a world power. We are also creating a precedent to violate the sovereignty of foreign nations, and perhaps we have put too low a threshold for determining whether another country is a threat to us. (I know, we must lower the bar because we didn't know of any terrorist threat before Sept 11. But can't we just temper that problem with a better analysis and coordination of intelligence that we are already collecting? How do we know when we've gone too far or not done enough)? This precedent might increase the chances that China would invade Taiwan or North Korea attack South Korea, etc.

I know that counting some of these costs in our decision to go to war would be seen, with justification, as cowardice in the face of evil. Where and to what degree do we accept that some evil is just too costly to defeat, and that we are safer by not fighting its existence? Where and to what degree do we accept that some evil is too costly not to defeat, and that we will die if we fail?



New Video in the Videos Section of a 3.24.03 Princeton conference about War in Iraq



I'm linking to a very biased and poorly done profile of Krugman by Howard Kurtz which is in the Others Section. Also there is a new article on squirrels in Krugman's backyard in the Personal Section



I've linked to the class notes to four of Krugman's princeton classes as well as some excerpts from the new Krugman/Wells textbook. You can find them in the Economic Theory Section. The courses' dates are Spring.03, Fall.02, Spring.02, and Fall.00. The Krugman/Wells date is Spring.03

Also in the Videos Section there are seven new audio clips from Krugman interviews. Their dates are 2.15.02, 9.28.01, 5.29.01, 1.21.99, 1.12.98, 12.3.97, and 10.3.96



Today marks half a century of Paul Krugman. It is a milestone in the life of one of the great Americans of our time and one of the great economists. The Unofficial Site wishes Paul a happy 50th birthday.

(Left to right: Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Alfred Marshall, John Maynard Keynes, John Hicks, Paul Samuelson, James Tobin, Robert Solow, and Paul Krugman)



Hey Folks. Lou Dobbs just reported that Glenn Hubbard is stepping down from the Council of Economics Advisors. And the date of his resignation will be . . . drum roll . . . February 28, 2003, otherwise known as Paul Krugman's 50th birthday.



You can hear Krugman's new 2.25.03 interview on NPR by going to the Videos Section



Hey Folks! 2 new pieces. Click here to read the transcript of Krugman's 2.23.03 "Reliable Sources" interview on media coverage of Iraq. We also have a 2.9.03 "CBS Sunday Morning" interview where Krugman debates manned space flight with Florida Senator Bill Nelson, who is a Democrat



Two new pieces from the Official Site. The first is an article on which president to thank for our present economy, and the second is an ode to the deer.

Krugman is doing CNN's "Reliable Sources", which aires tomorrow, Sunday 2.23.03 at 11:30 AM Eastern. It used to be on both Saturdays at 6 PM and reaired on the Sunday 11:30 time slot, but now Sundays 11:30 is the only timeslot



I just wanted to note the first four sentences of this paragraph of warning to Alan Greenspan from today's NYT article:

"No doubt you're under intense pressure to be a team player. But these guys are users: they persuade other people to squander their hard-won credibility on behalf of bad policies, then discard those people once they are no longer useful. Think of John DiIulio, or your friend Paul O'Neill. It's happening to Colin Powell right now."

I think that this is the core lesson that anyone who is loyal to Bush will eventually learn. George W. plunders whatever he can get his hands on, and then he's flown the coupe when it's time to take responsibility. What ever happened to the money that W.'s father's oil buddies invested in his failed businesses, the fiscal health of the state of Texas, the reputations of his former advisors, and now the fiscal health of the U.S. government? W.'s life basically consists of getting things handed to him on a silver platter, squandering them, and then avoiding responsibility. There really isn't much else. The guy is a pampered wastrel.



I was just wondering why this story about Bush lying about visiting the Johnson Space Center has not gotten more coverage from the Washington press corps. Compare this to Gore's "creating the internet" comment, which received endless coverage and ridicule. Bush's lie is by far more dishonest than Gore's claim, not to mention that it is an obvious attempt to exploit this tragedy for political gain. Meanwhile, Ari Fleischer's comment that "Bush has never seen a NASA launch or landing, in part because there are so many other beautiful things to see in the country that he has yet to explore" is beyond nauseating at a time like this. Bush and Fleischer should both apologize. Or maybe, for the sake of tradition, Bush should jettison Fleischer as he did Trent Lott, instead of actually facing the issue. Though the Washington press corps should go after Bush and Fleischer, they will probably sweep it under the rug, since each reporter fears accusations of liberal bias. Remember last December when Blogopshere, led by Josh Marshall, shamed them into covering Trent Lott's comments about Strom Thurmond? If there is any justice, history will repeat itself.



New from the Official Site: Once again Bush shows that he's a first-class phony, and as a bonus Ari Fleischer insults the space program



Hey Folks! Click here to read a new piece from the Official Site in which Krugman debunks some the OMB's spin about government spending



And there are two more posts from the Official Site about Bush's decreasing popularity here and here



Two new videos in the videos section from the first is a 1.29.03 interview with Paul about deflation and the second is a 5.16.02 interview about the wasteful new farm subsidies that Bush signed into law. Sorry, but you You must register for free with to view either of these clips



Hey Folks! There are two new Paul Krugman videos in the Videos Section. The most recent one has highlights from a 1.25.03 metting at the World Economic Forum about the Global Economic Outlook. Thank you to Paul for voicing his disappointment with the panel for ignoring short-run economic issues especially in Japan of all places! Hopefully WEF will soon put up the entire forum online so we can see the whole debate.

The other is of Paul Krugman at a 12.11.02 Princeton conference called "What's Next in Iraq? Is War Inevitable?" Regardless of your position on Iraq, this video has way more content than Bush's State of the Union speech the other night :)



Three new posts to announce: Two pieces from the Official Site -- one about Ferdinand Marcos and the other about the juicy details of Krugman's personal life.

Also please read Paul's 1.5.03 debate with Newt Gingrich on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"



Paul Krugman will be a guest tomorrow on Sunday morning 1.5.03 on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. He will be debating the Bush "stimulus" package against Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich



Hey Folks! I put in 13 new radio interviews of Paul Krugman into the Videos Section (which more appropriately should be called Video and Audio).

The most surprising one is this one where Paul does a joint interview alongside none other than . . . Robert Reich!!! Strange times these are . . .

Then there are three interviews done jointly with Gregory Mankiw, two where they duel on the tax cut which are here and here and one where they review the performance of the American economy in 2001

To see the rest just look in the Videos Section



Hey Folks! Here's an excellent new post from the Official Site about Republican lying with statistics regarding the tax code



Isn't the most disgusting part of this Trent Lott thing George W. Bush's reaction to it? Isn't the fact that Bush waited 7 days until the story was hot to deliver his self-righteous condemnation of Lott a little bit slimy and opportunistic? Why does anyone buy into Bush's faux outrage? He isn't angry at Lott -- he's just trying to score political points by stabbing his vulnerable political ally in the back.

Why don't Democrats shift focus and seize this moment to attack Bush for waiting seven days and taking obvious advantage of this situation for political gains? Bush is not an honest or principled man -- he just plays one on TV -- and Bush's behavior in this scandal is a good starting point for Democrats to send this message (which happens to be true) to the public.

It's Bush's turn to apologize to the American public.



Hey folks! Be sure to watch Paul Krugman on Friday 12.13.02 on PBS on NOW with Bill Moyers. In my part of the country it's on at 9PM Eastern time, but you can go here to find out when it's on in your area just by typing in your zip code. Friday is the correct day -- I promise.



There's a new article from the Official Site discussing the macroeconomics of old from Economics: The Original 1948 Edition, and its importance for today when we could be in a liquidity trap.



Hey Folks! There's a new post from the Official Site pointing out a sloppy mistake in a another attack by Mickey Kaus regarding this webpost by Dan Drezner



There is a new post of self-congratulation about the resignation of Larry Lindsey, which cites a favorite NYT article of mine.



At last, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill is history! From the Official Site, Paul Krugman has posted a note of self-congratulations. But the Unnofficial Site would like to congratulate Paul -- Paul Krugman not Paul O'Neill! -- on a job well-done in helping to make this happen. Well, I guess Paul O'Neill deserves some of the credit too. . . .



Congratulations Paul! There are two new articles about Paul Krugman, giving him (long overdue) praise. I put them in the Others on Krugman Section.

The first is a profile of Paul in the current Washington Monthly about how his column has become the most important in America. (Only now they realize!)

And the second is from Editor & Publisher naming Paul Krugman as columnist of the year!



I found and have linked to some clips of Krugman interviews from the NPR web site. One of them from 5.17.01 is about the Bush tax cut and the other from 9.24.01 is about September 11th. I have archived them in the Videos Section

There is also a new Krugman interview from the 10.8.02 Lou Dobbs: Moneyline, which I've put in the American Economy Section



Hey Folks! I've got three announcements for today

The First is one of two articles from the Official Site called Fat Right Tails. This one's on income inequality

The Second is the other article about Senator Chuck Grassley. Their both in the American Economy Section. (I wanted to put the second one in the Cranks Section, but decided to be nice to Grassley)

Finally, I don't usually do this for columns, but I HIGHLY recommend today's Times Column. It's of course in the Columns Section. It's an excellent article which really crystalizes everything that's wrong and dishonest about the Bush administration



Paul Krugman has written an Excellent New NYT Magazine article on inequality in America. From the Official Site has also provided some of his sources for the article. I've put them both in American Economy Section



Hey Folks! Long time no see!

Here's a new piece from the Official Site about Glenn Hubbard. It's in the Cranks Section

You'll also find some new video clips from 9.24.02 Princeton conference on the domestic effects of September 11th one year later. This one's in our Videos Section



I am posting this quotation and photo from Brad DeLong's Site in tribute to the Twin Towers and those who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11.

New York City

"We do know, however, that it is a rising, and not a setting, sun."



Time for a little bit of self-promotion: Look who Peter Passell put as one of his 12 favorite economics web sites. There are two links: one to Brad DeLong's version of the article and another to a PDF version from the Milken Institute Site



On the Official Site, Paul Krugman would like to correct the misconception that he was a member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors. He was on the staff.



New piece from the Official Site where Krugman recommends an odd meditative essay about him, Susan Sontag, and Andrew Sullivan in September's Harper's. It's not on the web.

I'm also linking to a interview with Paul with Paul from 4.5.01. It's link is in the American Economy Section.

I'm also linking to a Krugman article written on called Exchange Rates. By the way I hate this particular link and would appreciate it if anyone knows another url from which I can find it.



New piece from the Official Site on How The Surplus Was Lost.



I found and have linked to Paul Krugman's 1977 PhD thesis on flexible exchange rates. The link is in The Economic Theory Section.



The Official Site has a new piece about Bush's Budget Blues.



Paul Krugman appeared on Lou Dobbs: Moneyline today. Krugman did a Charlie Rose interview on 8.13.02. Hopefully Charlie Rose will soon have some audio that I can link to, but I have no idea.



As a follow up to Friday's article, Paul Krugman has for us Some Deflation Thoughts.



I've posted the transcripts of Paul Krugman's Moneyline appearances yesterday on August 6, 2002 and on July 22, 2002



New piece from the Official Site on accusations that the NY Times is too liberal. Check out the link to the Daily Howler's Anne Coulter article -- it's, well, a howler.



Hey folks!! I've got a new piece on Bush's Texas Rangers deal from the Paul's Official Site.



New article from the Official site where Paul has a disagreement with Morgan Stanley's Stephen Roach.

I just posted Dow 36,000: How Silly Is It? from 2.00.



Paul Krugman has written a very touching essay entitled Remembering Rudi Dornbusch.



Read Paul's newest piece on the Right's attempt to smear Robert Rubin. It's from the Official Site



The Unofficial Page and I would like to express our condolences to the family of the late Rudi Dornbusch. Paul Krugman has written a brief valedictory for him, and he will write more very soon.

I am linking to Professor Dornbusch's homepage, which has many of his papers, editorials, books, and CV. I am also linking to a page where you can watch the videos of a lecture series that Professor Dornbusch did in 1998.

In 1995, Krugman wrote about Dornbusch in his personal essay Incidents from My Career



Hey folks a quick note from the Official Site about rhinos



Don't miss Krugman's newest column entitled "Succeeding in Business."



Hey folks! I just put in a permanent link to the forthcoming Krugman/Wells: Principles of Economics textbook and a link to Krugman's best-selling International Economics: Theory and Policy in the Books section



Paul Krugman just did a June 5 interview with Lou Dobbs on Moneyline. Click here to read it. They discuss perverse incentives for CEOs and Gekkonomics



I just posted 12 new pieces in the American Economy section. They are actually transcripts of interviews that Krugman has done the past few years. Since it would be impractical to link to them here, these are their dates as posted on American Economy page: 9.28.01, 8.31.01, 8.19.01, 7.29.01, 5.29.01, 5.17.01, 5.16.01, 5.4.01, 4.13.01, 3.12.99, 10.4.96, and 10.3.96



As well as today's column I just posted a past column from 4/11/01 that wasn't here before. Now the column section does have ALL the articles Krugman has written for the Times since becoming a regular columnist there



I just wanted to recommend Krugman's 5/31/02 article on foreign aid. It is very good and very convincing.



Krugman speaks about Argentina at UT-Austin! I've posted two new Krugman videos from this event:

One is a conference about Argentina, where Krugman debates Carlos Zarazaga of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

The other is Krugman's keynote address on Argentina.



Two new pieces from Krugman's Official Site. The first one is about Red versus Blue states in theory. The second describes Frank Wolak's model of the California electricity crisis.



I found transcripts of Krugman interviews from "Lou Dobbs Moneyline" and posted most of them in the American Economy section and one in the Crises section



Click here to see our new "Videos" section, where you can find all of the videos and webcasts of Krugman conferences, lectures, etc. that I could find on the internet. If anyone knows of any video files on the internet not already in this section, please tell me.

For those of you looking at my sad attempt at a "Videos" button in the left margin, I'll change it as soon as I figure out how to make it look like the others.



Two in one day! Please Click Here to read this new Krugman article in which he answers accusations that his Times column is too partisan.



Please Click Here to read this new article in which Krugman explains how he goes about writing his biweekly column. It comes from The Official Krugman Site.



Hi folks! I've posted some new articles in the American Economy, Global, Crises, and International Trade Sections. I haven't put any synopses for those articles, so you can tell which ones they are. I'll post the synopses when I've read the articles



Here is a new preliminary web site for Paul Krugman's forthcoming textbook on principles of micro and macroeconomics. Its estimated time of arrival is December, 2003



AT LAST! The video of Paul Krugman at the World Economic Forum has arrived! Please click here to see the video of Paul Krugman speaking at the World Economic Forum, which was held this year in my home town New York City instead of Davos.



Here is quick note on today's op-Ed, The Third Oil Crisis?



Here is Paul Krugman's very own response to Ben Stein's open letter regarding Krugman's eulogy of James Tobin.



Recently Ben Stein (from 'Ferris Bueller,' 'The Wonder Years,' and Comedy Central's 'Win Ben Stein's Money') wrote an anti-Krugman mini-tirade regarding Krugman's March 12th column in memory of James Tobin.

Here is Jack O'Toole's response to Stein.

And here is my (Bobby) very own rant on this subject.



The Unofficial Page would like to express our deepest condolences to the family of the late James Tobin, a great man and one of the great inventors of the Economic Sciences. Paul Krugman, one of Professor Tobin's students, has written this piece in tribute to him. I am linking to Professor Tobin's Yale homepage, which includes his papers, CV, and other resources. You can also learn more about James Tobin at his Nobel page.



Today is Paul Krugman's 49th birthday! The Unofficial Page wishes him a very happy birthday and 49 more



Click to see this new piece from the Official Page that responds to House Speaker Dennis Hastert's attack on Krugman's columns in a recent letter to the Times



Learn International Economics at the Ph.D. level from Paul Krugman! You can find the supplementary Notes to his class by going to the International Trade Section or by clicking right here on the file Ph.D. International Trade



The public is starting to see this Krugman-Enron thing for what it is, absolutely nothing but petty sniping by Andrew Sullivan who has way too much time on his hands. But, in case you had any doubt, Paul Krugman has answered some of the questions you might have in this FAQ piece, or, if you are in a hurry, read the short version.



I found a link which has a video of Krugman at a World Economic Forum conference, held in NYC this year instead of Davos. Here's the link:



Hey, folks! I found two sets of Krugman videos at two separate sites. One is a page that has two conferences at Princeton where Krugman speaks about September 11, although you'll have to search for the videos on the page (press control-F and type "Krugman"), and you'll have to fastforward in each of the videos in order to get to Krugman's speech. Sorry but the Sept 21 conference has lousy sound quality. The second is a page of videos on the Rockefellers, where PBS interviews Krugman about this subject



Here is a new article by Paul Krugman about The Dangers of Humor, especially when you-know-who is watching.



Please click to read a new Krugman article on Academics and Consulting. It puts this Enron non-scandal in context, and is a powerful corrective to the over-eager Sullivan.



Hi there, this is Kevin.

I figured I'd use this bit of controversy over Krugman to post my thoughts on the past two years. You can find them here

The gist is that I'm pretty sorta disappointed. E-mail me at with your comments, which I'll be posting around here. -K


In case you haven't heard, sleazy conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan has leveled trumped-up charges against Krugman regarding Krugman's brief stint as an Enron advisory board member in 1999. Although Krugman immediately and fully disclosed this fact in a 1999 Fortune Article, Sullivan is still complaining. Since Sullivan can't win any of his economic arguments against Krugman on the merits, Sullivan has resorted to personal attacks. Click here to read Krugman's response. And Here is a defense of Krugman by Joshua Micah Marshall. And Click here to read Sullivan's ever-more-desperate attempts to try to pin something on Krugman.



2 New Krugman Pieces on Argentina in the Crises Section. Click here to read the first one. And Click here to read the second one. Krugman would probably appreciate it if you did.




Learn Introductory Macroeconomics from Paul Krugman! I found the lecture notes to his '98 introductory macro class on the MIT site. Here is the link to the MIT page with the notes: I am also linking to the MIT Economics course catalogue which has some course web pages and lecture notes of other MIT professors. You might have to search a little bit to find them: I will put both of these in the links section later. Sorry, people, Princeton won't let you access Krugman's Introductory Microeconomics lecture notes unless you have a NetID and password. If anyone knows how to get to these otherwise please send me an email at


Hey Folks! I recently posted some Krugman articles from the distant past. My two favorites are the one on solving traffic jams although it's title doesn't suggest it and an article where Krugman predicts the future of the American economy in the 21st Century. The other new ones are posted in the American Economy, Global, and New Economy sections.


Please click to read Paul Krugman's newest article on the U.S. economy during this crisis


News!! PKArchive is back!! We now have a volunteer to update columns and as much Krugman stuff as is humanly possible. His email is Tell your friends and everybody you know that the Unofficial Paul Krugman Archive is back and as vital, up-to-date, and comprehensive as ever!!

Search Search WWW